In RE: Declaration of the Petitioner's Rights and Duties under Section 8 of RA

6132. Kay Villegas Kami. [GR L-32485, 22 October 1970] First Division,
Makasiar (J): 4 concur, 1 reserves vote, 2 maintain opinions in Imbong vs.
Comelec and Gonzales vs. Comelec, 1 concurs partly, 1 on leave, 1 files separate
dissenting opinion

Facts: Kay Villegas Kami, Inc., filed a petition for declaratory relief, claiming to be a duly
recognized and existing non-stock and non-profit corporation created under the laws of the land,
and praying for a determination of the validity of Section 8 of RA 6132 and a declaration of
petitioner's rights and duties thereunder. In paragraph 7 of its petition, "Kay Villegas Kami" avers
that it has printed materials designed to propagate its ideology and program of government, and
that in paragraph 11 of said petition, it intends to pursue its purposes by supporting delegates to
the Constitutional Convention who will propagate its ideology. "Kay Villegas kami" actually
impugns only the first paragraph of Sec. 8(a) on the ground that it violates the due process clause,
right of association, and freedom of expression and that it is an ex post facto law.

Issue: Whether Section 8 of RA 6132 is in the nature of an ex-post facto law.

Held: An ex post facto law is one which: (1) makes criminal an act done before the passage of the
law and which was innocent when done, and punishes such an act; (2) aggravates a crime, or makes
it greater than it was, when committed; (3) changes the punishment and inflicts a greater
punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed; (4) alters the legal rules of
evidence, and authorizes conviction upon less or different testimony than the law required at the
time of the commission of the offense; (5) assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in
effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful; and
(6) deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has become entitled,
such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty. From the
aforesaid definition as well as classification of ex post facto laws, the constitutional inhibition
refers only to criminal laws which are given retroactive effect. While it is true that Sec. 18
penalizes a violation of any provision of RA 6132 including Sec. 8 (a) thereof, the penalty is
imposed only for acts committed after the approval of the law and not those perpetrated prior
thereto. There is nothing in the law that remotely insinuates that Secs. 8(a) and 18, or any other
provision thereof, shall apply to acts carried out prior to its approval. On the contrary, Sec. 23
directs that the entire law shall be effective upon its approval. It was approved on 24 August 1970.